AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just two bracketed words plus the main statement. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application orchestration' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other resources. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra about parameter meaning or usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Create an application orchestration' which clearly indicates a creation action on an application orchestration resource. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'application orchestration' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_application' or 'create_appstack_change_request' which also create related resources. The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but remains general.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that create various resources (applications, change requests, pipelines, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific orchestration creation is appropriate versus other creation tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.